Relationship between balance and dual task walking in the very elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the relationship between balance and dual task performance in adults aged over 80 years, and to analyze possible differences between fallers and non-fallers in dual task performance. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was carried out at the Federal University of São Carlos (Brazil). We assessed 67 community-dwelling older adults aged over 80 years who were able to walk. The volunteers were divided into groups of fallers and non-fallers. The one-leg standing and tandem tests were used to assess balance. Dual task was assessed by the Timed Up and Go test, associated with a motor task (TUGT-motor) and a cognitive task (TUGT-cognitive). Statistical analyses were carried out, and the significance level was set at α = 5%. RESULTS: Significant correlations were found between balance and dual task variables. Fallers took significantly more time and steps on both the TUGT-motor and the TUGT-cognitive, with no significant differences on balance tests between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the influence of dual task walking on balance and fall risk could help health professionals to prevent falls in older adults, as well as optimize assessment and intervention planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".